5 Reasons Why Intel Is Being Pushed Against The Wall By AMD

Over the years, Intel and AMD have been in quite a battle to bring out the best processors. Eventually a point came where you didn’t hear all too much about what AMD was up to, while Intel was rolling out all of its latest processors.

However, AMD’s “quiet time” was very well used, as they are now releasing their newest APUs, (Accelerated Processing Unit), to reignite the battle with Intel. Along with AMD’s current regular CPU offerings and its plans for the future, there’s more pressure on Intel than you might think.

AMD Processor vs Intel – Integrated Graphics

Before we talk about this, we have to first understand the difference between the common CPUs and the new APUs. An APU is simply a combination of a CPU and a GPU onto a single chip that is roughly the same size as any other CPU. The APU also includes a few more controllers, and therefore the “Northbridge” chip on a motherboard is no longer necessary.

In case you didn’t know why AMD bought ATI back in 2006, the main reason was to have access to its graphics technologies in order to create these “Fusion” APUs. Of course they will continue selling dedicated GPUs, but the main reason for the buy was to integrate the great graphics chips into their CPUs, and not to simply get into the graphics market (although that is a secondary effect).

AMD’s APUs are quite the invention. Along with great, market-appropriate processing cores (power-efficient for mobile devices, and speedy for desktops and higher-end notebooks), the addition of some very nice Radeon cores allows the APU to simply “do it all”. This is actually an advantage over Intel, who are also making CPUs with integrated graphics. Their new Sandy Bridge processors (2nd Generation Core processors), which Intel still calls CPUs and not APUs, include Intel HD Graphics. However, Intel’s graphics offerings have never been decent in my opinion, and won’t be able to play any of the latest games.

An example is Intel’s Atom processors against AMD’s C-series processors. If we take the single core variants of both, AMD’s offering can still play 1080p HD video while Intel’s Atom processor can’t. What’s even more amazing is that the AMD processor is clocked lower and doesn’t use HyperThreading, yet it is still able to pull it off well. Power consumption is roughly the same for both chips.

Efficiency

Speaking of power consumption, that’s my second reason! Most of AMD’s CPUs are more power efficient than Intel’s. This is especially true for the new APUs, where power efficiency is a high priority. Intel’s latest Sandy Bridge processors have been better in that category, but we can’t say the same thing for the previous offerings. Power efficiency will continue to be a high priority in future AMD products.

Pricing

AMD has some very competitive pricing on their products. Generally speaking, AMD has a reputation for introducing processors that have greater performance than similarly priced Intel processors. For everything I have seen, this has always been true.

For example, AMD’s flagship Phenom II X6 1100T is around $70 less than Intel’s Core i5 2500K, which doesn’t really give any noticeable performance increases over the 1100T. AMD has always made quality chips with great performance for a more affordable price.

Other Ventures

AMD isn’t just about processors. They’re also involved in the graphics card industry (obviously), motherboard chipsets, and very recently, system memory. AMD has announced the Radeon-branded system memory only a couple of days ago. There aren’t many variations in the different memory modules that are planned to be offered, but I believe that the selection will expand over time. The advertised system memory is crafted to work well with AMD processors, according to the company.

Bright Future

Thanks to AMD’s affordable CPUs and new APUs, the company already has quite an array of products that are apparently selling very well. AMD is also rolling out their new “Bulldozer” cores in Q3 of 2011, with the “FX” brand. These new cores are supposed to have a completely new architecture design, built from the ground up. AMD claims that their performance-per-watt ratio has dramatically been increased, which can only be good news. These new FX processors will appear as quad-core, six-core, and eight-core variants.

Conclusion

The new and future processors that AMD is offering are helping the company gain some momentum, which could turn ugly for Intel over time. I believe that if there ever comes a point where AMD has enough momentum to design a chip that is more powerful than anything Intel has, and yet still at an affordable price (and not the $999+ that Intel is asking), then that is the time when AMD could possibly get a much, much larger market share. We’re not at that point yet, but AMD sure has its plans set in motion, and they look good right now.

Which do you prefer when you consider the AMD processor vs Intel, and why? Do you think AMD could at least get to the point where it shares the market with Intel 50/50? Let us know in the comments!

Get the best tips from MakeUseOf in your inbox, free!

Jeffery Fabish

August 22, 2011

I don’t think AMD was being very altruistic with this video, there is (for certain) other variables that they are not telling us in the systems. I purchased Intel’s Sandy Bridge some time ago and personally find these tests to be falsified (when in comparison with Fusion).

Greigner

August 22, 2011

I’ve always been an AMD user; my last 2 custom systems ran AMD and were great. For my latest system, I decided to try Intel’s Sandy Bridge series (2nd gen, Core i5 2400). My Intel system is still not up and running because the cpu is overheating (when used with the stock Intel heatsink). This isn’t the case for everyone, but it seems many are experiencing some temperature issues with the latest Intel products. I’m thinking now I should have stuck with AMD…

MicroBuntu

September 7, 2011

Indeed. Just put my system together with 2600k. Stock cooler results in system instantly hitting 90c.

Quantum Leap

August 22, 2011

Well I was an avid AMD user but went to Intel last year because for some reason the motherboards made for their CPUs have always given me problems after a year or so. I’ve tried different brands too, and it’s either they die or become unstable.

But these APUs have once again whet my appetite. May just pick one up…hmmm I wonder how FSX would fare on one of these babies?

Amualf

August 23, 2011

You r quite right. I do admire the creativity but I do wish they wud pay more attention to issues of durability. AMD boards, and especially in combination with nVidia chips become toast after a year’s use.

Danny Stieben

September 5, 2011

FSX should probably run decently (20-30fps) with moderate graphics settings. But it’s very hard to get excellent results with FSX. I say this because I get anywhere from 20-50fps with my setup which is already high-end: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T, 8GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6950

DeadlyDad

Drew Perreault

August 23, 2011

Always been an AMD fan myself. I would love an all AMd rig, graphics, processor, memory etc. their performance vs price is always MUCH higher than intel’s. sure the latest bleeding edge intel (priced at $1,200or whatever) might be slightly faster than AMD’s current highest (at $300) but just look at the prices. plus we all know AMD always catches up soon and intel has to cut prices drastically (but not enough to be considered affordable to my standards) my $500 (self built) PC outperforms some $800 Intel based rigs I’ve seen on youtube.

Kim Leo Jensen

October 3, 2011

I have 2 AMD only rigs :P, one is my Desktop(Phenom II x4, Mobo with 990chipset, and 6950 GFX), and my laptop, which sadly isn’t Llano, I ordered a Llano based Probook, but it still haven’t arrived so I’m considering just skipping Llano and wait for Trinity, which looks like it could be great! but yeah my laptop is a Phenom II x4 2.1GHz, 880M chipset, and 6650GFX. I’m surprised how good it is actually, it was really cheap and it’s an Acer 5552G, but I really got good value, the battery time isn’t great at all, but it’s not horrible either, I know a lot of people who buy more expensive laptops and settles with less. I’m glad that AMD is able to improve things like battery time and GPU performance over Intel who seems to have the strategy, that as long as you can make more CPU people will be happy, no balance at all.

Danny Stieben

TorchuVander

August 26, 2011

I am constructing my first desktop computer, and i plan to make this thing a “Monster.” I want that bulldozer cpu, if I can get that and it does well, AMD will have its place in my heart over intel. The only reason i ever liked intel better, It has been stable for me, and the stickers on the Pc cases looked cleaner. Thats it.

I just bought an Acer One with the AMD Dual Core C-50. It has perfomed much better than and ATOM and uses less power! I am becoming a fan of AMD and hope that they get their spotlight.

Danny Stieben

September 5, 2011

That’s awesome! Before I got swept up in some AMD love I bought an Eee PC with an Intel Atom processor. It works, but it could definitely be better. Sure wish I had one with an AMD C-50, or a mini-laptop with an E-350!

Mick

September 2, 2011

AMD all the way, my first PC was an Intel 486, that an old Toshiba laptop and an ASUS EEEPC were my only Intel powered computers. Brought an AMD K% 133 as my first, and only, new off the shelf machine, and have stuck with AMD on the desktop ever since AMD have always had more options than Intel for the home user on the overclocking front, with an unlocked bus mutiplier. Even moved over to AMD in my laptops. The only other non-Intel computers are an Apple G4 Powerbook, and a G5 Powermac (don’t want an IntelMac!!).

Jessie

September 2, 2011

I used to like amd processors but as a pc tech I have seen too many laptops with motherboard, dying or causing some serious problems, some of them are fixable aplying heat to reset the gpu again, but there is always a chance to completely fry the board, and also, it may start again after a month or two with the same video problem.

Adaminfosys

September 2, 2011

AMD has always given given the best of processors, its just that Intel is behaving like BIG Brother and tries all its marketing strategies to kill AMD using dealers and moreover regional heads who are loaded with Intel Profit Sharing Schemes to gain more personally.
Intel has always been projected Excellent – Sounded better – Performed Worst if you initially compare with the promises it makes during the launch.

AMD is the right choice and if its Gaming —- Intel is still learning…..

pceasies

September 2, 2011

My first CPU was an AMD, but when I upgraded latest May Intel had a huge hold on the CPU market and I got a far better deal on a new i7 920 that kicked around any similarly priced AMD. In my opinion Intel still has better desktop processors than AMD, but AMD’s Fusion is better than Atom + w/e Intel has come up with so far.

The Dude

James Skates

September 3, 2011

I’ve only bought one off the shelf system in my life and have been building my own ever since (going on 10 years now). I have also built several systems for small businesses and friends. In all, around 200+ systems.

I’ve used almost a 50/50 mix between AMD and Intel based on multiple factors. I love using AMD’s for single purpose always on appliances due to their lower power consumption….pF sense routers/gateways, Asterisks telephony systems, homebrew security systems, headless servers, etc. For the general use desktops that I’ve built, it has almost always come down to whatever I could get at a decent price at the time.

Recently, I’ve been almost exclusively Intel, but I believe that I am going to go back to using AMD. I really hope that AMD’s ideas come to fruition because I really love them as a company and as others have said, a little competition is almost always a good thing.

Kim Leo Jensen

October 3, 2011

EU’s are not SP’s, like you can’t compare nVidia cores with AMD cores. This is a fair comparison because they take Intels offering and compare it to AMD’s offering, they are built in GPU’s and that’s all that matters, by your logic we can’t compare the CPU part because Llano runs less MHz, but my guess is you won’t object to that.

Mike

I’m just trying to say the test is not viable for the consumer.
Yes, the Llano might perform better doing Excel or let’s say a Prime95 calculations.
Yes, the Llano might perform better doing Rendering or let’s say DX11 graphics.

If they did compare both parts, GPU and CPU individually I would tell you right here right now “amazing chip AMD has there”.

But by doing multitasking across both I have no indication how they compare to each other because on the Intel CPU Excel & Rendering, Prime95 and DX11 will choke one another wherein the AMD handles one solely on the CPU cores and the other on the APUs.